Below is my column in The Hill on why a Harris-Walz Administration would be a nightmare for free speech. A long-standing advocate for censorship and other speech controls, Vice President Kamala Harris just added an equally menacing candidate to her ticket for 2024.
Here is the column:
The selection of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) as the running mate for Vice President Kamala Harris has led to intense debates over crime policy, war claims, gender identity policies and other issues.
Some attacks have, in my view, been inaccurate or overwrought. However, the greatest danger from this ticket is neither speculative nor sensational. A Harris-Walz administration would be a nightmare for free speech.
For over three years, the Biden-Harris administration has sustained an unrelenting attack on the freedom of speech, from supporting a massive censorship system (described by a federal court as an “Orwellian Ministry of Truth“) to funding blacklisting operations targeting groups and individuals with opposing views.
President Biden made censorship a central part of his legacy, even accusing social media companies of “killing people” for failing to increase levels of censorship. Democrats in Congress pushed that agenda by demanding censorship on subjects ranging from climate change to gender identity — even to banking policy — in the name of combatting “disinformation.”
The administration also created offices like the Disinformation Governance Board before it was shut down after public outcry. But it quickly shifted this censorship work to other offices and groups.
As vice president, Harris has long supported these anti-free speech policies. The addition of Walz completes a perfect nightmare for free speech advocates. Walz has shown not only a shocking disregard for free speech values but an equally shocking lack of understanding of the First Amendment.
Walz went on MSNBC to support censoring disinformation and declared, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”
Ironically, this false claim, repeated by many Democrats, constitutes one of the most dangerous forms of disinformation. It is being used to convince a free people to give up some of their freedom with a “nothing to see here” pitch.
In prior testimony before Congress on the censorship system under the Biden administration, I was taken aback when the committee’s ranking Democrat, Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands), declared, “I hope that [all members] recognize that there is speech that is not constitutionally protected,” and then referenced hate speech as an example.
That false claim has been echoed by others such as Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who is a lawyer. “If you espouse hate,” he said, “…you’re not protected under the First Amendment.” Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean declared the identical position: “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.”
Even some dictionaries now espouse this false premise, defining “hate speech” as “Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.”
The Supreme Court has consistently rejected the claim of Gov. Walz. For example, in the 2016 Matal v. Tam decision, the court stressed that this precise position “strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”
As the new Democratic vice-presidential candidate, Walz is running alongside one of the most enthusiastic supporters of censorship and blacklisting systems.
In her failed 2020 presidential bid, Harris ran on censorship and pledged that her administration “will hold social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms, because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy.”
In October 2019, Harris dramatically spoke directly to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, insisting “This is not a matter of free speech….This is a matter of holding corporate America and these Big Tech companies responsible and accountable for what they are facilitating.” She asked voters to join her in the effort.
They didn’t, but Harris ultimately succeeded in the Biden-Harris administration to an unprecedented degree with a comprehensive federal effort to target and silence individuals and groups on social media.
In my new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I detailed how President Biden is the most anti-free speech president since John Adams. Unlike Adams, I have never viewed Biden as the driving force behind the massive censorship and blacklisting operations supported by his subordinates, including Harris. That is not to say that Biden does not share the shame in these measures. He was willing to sacrifice not only free speech but also institutions like the Supreme Court in a desperate effort to rescue his failing nomination.
The substitution of Harris for Biden makes this the second election in which free speech is the key issue for voters. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated Adams, in large part based on his pledge to reverse the anti-free speech policies of the prior administration, including the use of the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest his opponents.
With the addition of Walz, Democrats now have arguably the most anti-free speech ticket of a major party in more than two centuries. Both candidates are committed to using disinformation, misinformation and malinformation as justifications for speech controls. The third category has been emphasized by the Biden-Harris administration, which explained that it is information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”
Walz has the advantage in joining this anti-free speech ticket without the burden of knowledge of what is protected under the First Amendment.
With the Harris-Walz ticket, we have come full circle to the very debate at the start of this republic. The warnings of the Founders to reject the siren’s call of censorship remain tragically relevant today. Free speech was and remains our “indispensable right.”
As Benjamin Franklin warned, “In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech….Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech, which is the right of every man.”
With her selection of Walz, Harris has decided to put free speech on the ballot in this election. It is a debate that our nation should welcome, as it did in 1800.
The Biden-Harris administration has notably toned down its anti-free speech efforts as the election approaches. Leading censorship advocates have also gone mostly silent.
If successful, a Harris-Walz administration is expected to bring back those policies and personalities with a vengeance. That could be radically enhanced if the Democrats take both houses of Congress and once again block investigations into their censorship programs.
The media has worked very hard to present Harris and Walz as the “happy warriors.” Indeed, they may be that and much more. The question is what they are happy about in their war against free speech.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon and Schuster).
This is a very scary, dangerous, slippery slope. WHO gets to determine what qualifies as hate speech? Is hate speech anything you disagree with? Free speech is FREE SPEECH for all, even if, and especially if it is something you disagree with, otherwise, it is NOT FREE.
*SENATOR KEELEY
Hate speech—> I HATE broccoli. I’m searching for agreement.
who is this commenter Anonymous? Why do they hide behind the veil of anonymity instead of using their name. are they afraid of what we would find out. I recognize that anonymous commentary has a history in our country eg The Federalist Papers, but eventually the identity is exposed.
Who is the PeterK? STFU with that nonsense. No on here knows me from adam. No one her knows you from adam. Nor do they care to.
ANOTHER round of anti-Anonymous comments?
Just take them case by case. Some are worth reading.
Some aren’t. Just like with the ones posted with a ‘screen name’.
I hate anonymous comments.
PeterK,
All the various anonys are just pathetic losers who are not worth reading their comments. Just scroll past and read the much more interesting and better comments.
Upstate with the ‘Anonymous should use separate drinking fountains’ again.
UpstateFarmer: I have posted on here several times citing my reasons for posting as “Anonymous”; primarily the fact that after I switched to a Linux computer, some change in the way Firefox works in that environment causes this site to no longer offer me the opportunity to post under a screen name. I do not doubt that there are others here experiencing the same issue. Nevertheless, unless you care to furnish all of us with a name and other PII that would allow us to ascertain your actual legal identity, imo you have no justification for complaint about those posters. “Upstate Framer” is no more an actual identity than is “Anonymous”. And before you claim that your prior posts can be attributed by that screen name, convince me that you are the only poster who has ever used that handle here. What is to stop another user from posting as “Upstate Farmer”? There are at least two “Georges” here who have diametrically opposed political POV. If you really object to the anonymous posting, feel free to try to persuade Turley or his surrogate Dereck here to allow comment posting only by registered users. Until then you can STFU and/or GFU .
“Upstate Framer” is no more an actual identity than is “Anonymous”
Of course, it is. Upstate uses a name and a specific icon, so we know it is the same person. You hide under anonymous and makeup stories about why you can’t use a specific alias with an address that keeps your identity hidden while providing others with a persona they can relate to.
S. Meyer,
Quite right.
I make a point of using the same handle and icon proudly. It may not be my “identity,” everyone here on the good professor’s blog know it, with some looking for it to read my comments just as I do yours. There are those here who I find their comments insightful, interesting and many I have come to respect. I would gladly meet many in real life for a cup of coffee.
The anonymous on the other hand, their comments are not worth reading. Just scroll past.
I tend to view identity by the comment and not the name. A unique name like yours, or S. Meyer or FishWings or Gigi has an ideological reputation that is easily identified. I know what I’m going to get and read or ignore accordingly. Anonymous = No Value…scroll on by.
OLLY,
Exactly!!!
OT, have you read the book, Blind Man’s Bluff?
I haven’t, but it looks very interesting. Just ordered it. Thank you!
It was absolutely fascinating! I think you will really enjoy it!
If what happens outside American can come to America, then it is our business. Franklin was no fan of th East India Company. “The attacks upon the East India Company as a soulless corporation and an inhuman monopoly remind us of the language of our own times. If such a company, it was said, once got a foothold in America, it would trade in other articles besides tea, and drive American merchants out of business. A printed handbill was circulated in Pennsylvania describing the company’s shocking deeds of plunder and cruelty in India, and arguing that it would overwhelm America with the same rapacity and slaughter that had been inflicted on the unfortunate East Indians. Franklin’s old friend, the Bishop of St. Asaph, prepared a speech for the House of Lords, denouncing the government for turning loose upon the Americans a corporation with such a record of bloodshed and tyranny.” Franklin would not have been a fan of Trump, who would let Russia rape Ukraine like the East India Company raped India.
*SENATOR KEELEY
How about that Bombay Gin? The Brithish had agreements with Rajas and Majarajas so stop the total bs.
What censorship? Conservatives can still express their opinions and views as always. Plus, there are hundreds perhaps thousands of ways they can express their views on social media. Not just on Facebook or X. They have their own podcasts, blogs, news letters, books, think tanks, student organizations, etc. Which ones have been censored? If they have been censored why do we still hear about their complaints and criticism?
Conservative public officials call for banning books they don’t like because it’s either once sentence in a book seems offensive, or the idea that there are others not like them are represented in a library where you don’t have to check out a book if you don’t like it. If they don’t like their kids to read those kinds of books why do they get to decide for everyone else?
“If they don’t like their kids to read those kinds of books why do they get to decide for everyone else?”
Thank you for outing yourself as a spastic idiot.
It’s called a Democratic Republic. You many have heard the term. Not only can a majority sometimes decide, sometimes a minority can as well. If you dont like it, work to change it or move to a state that allows pronography in school libraries. There are PLENTY of opportunities.
That’s got nothing to do with a democratic republic.
That’s just parents and public officials dictating to others how they should manage what their kids chooses to read or decide what is appropriate for their kids.
What makes one or two parents custodians of everyone else’s kids? Most of what they deem offensive is not pornography. There are plenty of graphic novels and romance novels that kids or pre-teens can access at a library besides the ones being banned. Nobody is calling for the banning of those. It’s obvious it’s just about banning the views of a specific group because they find it offensive. If they don’t like it, don’t check the books out or tell the librarian not to let their children check out those books. It’s pretty simple.
That’s just parents and public officials dictating to others how they should manage what their kids chooses to read or decide what is appropriate for their kids.
Parents dictating
LMAO
Just say whatever stupid shit comes to mind
“public officials dictating to others how they should manage what their kids chooses to read or decide what is appropriate for their kids.”
LMAO yep, thats how a constitutional republic works.
Despite your gaslighting. Parents are free to let their kids read whatever they like. Just not from the SCHOOL LIBRARY.
Thank you for outing yourself as a spastic idiot.
Conservative public officials call for banning books they don’t like because it’s either once sentence in a book seems offensive
Another cowardly Anonymous groomer and pedophile – outraged that parents don’t want equally sexually deviant teachers to put copies of Hustler Magazine, complete with centerfold pictures of legs splayed gaping vaginas on school library shelves. Anonymous Soviet Democrats say it’s weird that Americans don’t want them putting sexually explicit porn on the library shelves for kids who still believe in Santa Clause.
For these Soviet Democrat groomers and pedophiles, the idea of age appropriate material is nothing but a book ban.
The good news is that these Anonymous groomers and pedophiles can buy any kind of hard core porn they want to take home and give to their unfortunate children.
There’s a reason these Soviet Democrat sexual deviants never provide a link to the supposed “book ban” that lists books prohibited from being sold to Anonymous Soviet Democrat perverts.
The reason is there is no “book ban” – it’s just another version of their “Russia Dossier”.
So true.
In what backward ass world do the rules of Congress allow a pinhead that is not allowed to vote in congress, to vote in committee, musch less be the “ranking member”?
Why are we still in the colonializing business anyway? All territories should be immediately cut loose.
The trajectory for the country is terrible. Even if Trump wins, we will see the absolute worst from the Left and their MSM acolytes. It ain’t gonna be pretty, regardless of who wins.
It won’t be pretty for losers who aren’t qualified for well paying jobs.
Unless they’re _____________ (insert immutable characteristic du jour), like harris or walz, mulatto and token white guy commie, respectively
It won’t be pretty for losers who aren’t qualified for well paying jobs.
Like booger eating drunktards who mow grass for a living, Lawn Boy?
The professor’s hyperbolic claims don’t align with reality. Even SCOTUS pointed out Turley’s conspiracy theory driven hyperbole is without merit.
“Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that neither the five individuals nor the two states who sued the government had legal standing to be in court at all. She said they presented no proof to back up their claims that the government had pressured social media companies like Twitter and Facebook into restricting their speech. “Unfortunately,” she said, the Fifth Circuit court of appeals “relied on factual findings that are “clearly erroneous.”
For instance, she said, the plaintiffs who brought the case maintained that the White House had bombarded Twitter with requests to set up a streamlined process for censorship requests. But in fact, she said, the record showed no such requests. Rather, on one occasion a White House official asked Twitter to remove a fake account pretending to be the account of Biden’s granddaughter. Twitter took down the fake account and told the official about a portal that could be used in the future to flag similar issues.
“Justice Barrett went out of her way to stress that facts matter and that lower courts in this case embraced a fact-free version of what transpired between officials in the Biden administration and Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies,”
The fifth circuit has been overturned so many times for being wrong because their rulings have relied too much on conspiracy theories and claims without evidence. In her opinion for the court majority, Justice Barrett said that at every turn, the alleged facts turned to dust, and that the plaintiffs had failed to trace past or potential future harm to anything done by officials at the White House, the CDC, the FBI, or a key cyber security agency. The court said, many of the actions taken by the social media platforms to modify content about COVID vaccines or other matters, were taken before any contacts with government officials took place. They were following their TOS.
It’s not enough to rail against the government for criticizing an individual’s message online. Criticism is not censorship. The government has a free speech right to voice an opinion just like everyone else. There has to be a causal link between the government’s commentary and what happens on a social media platform. There has to be a traceable link, a link that the court said was entirely missing in this case, as the social media companies had their own valid reasons for moderating content, and often exercised their own judgment, their own exercise of free speech.
“The government has a free speech right to voice an opinion just like everyone else.”
Says who?
Says SCOTUS. There is absolutely no law prohibiting government from expressing an opinion or criticism. None. Justice Kagan pointed out government criticizes news articles and reporting all the time, they even ask for corrections or retractions, or say certain ‘facts’ are wrong. That’s not censorship. Saying certain claims are disinformation or misinformation and pointing it out to social media companies is not censorship. Because it’s up to social media companies to decide if the content violates their TOS or not. Plaintiffs could not prove coercion either. Which is why they ended up with lack of standing. The insinuation of coercion without proof is not enough. They must prove a direct causal link, not just assumed.
“Says SCOTUS. There is absolutely no law prohibiting government from expressing an opinion or criticism.”
Again, you must be from a different country because in our system, LAWS do not PROHIBIT RIGHTS of the government, because the governement holds no rights. Laws limit the power of the government, or define the ways government can carry out the powers and duties it is specifically assigned. Laws that do otherwise are unconstituional. The Constitution gives the government powers and duties, not rights. And the ONLY powers and duties they have are those EXPRESSLY identified in the Constitution. Free speech of the PEOPLE is a right expressly acknowleged in the First Amendment. No such “right” or has ever been abrogated to the government, or assigned as a duty or power.
Lets make this simple. Define “government” in your context.
“because the governement holds no rights. Laws limit the power of the government, or define the ways government can carry out the powers and duties it is specifically assigned.
Government has rights. In the constitution they are described as powers. The government has the right enforce laws enacted by the right of congress to make laws. Why is that concept so difficult for you to understand?
An absence of a law does not mean it’s a prohibition. There is no law or constitutional amendment prohibiting government from exercising free speech. There is no law prohibiting government from expressing opinion or criticism. None. It means even the courts cannot say government cannot express their views or criticisms like everyone else.
There is absolutely nothing in the constitution saying the absence of a law is a prohibition. Can you find anything saying the government cannot exercise free speech?
“Government has rights. In the constitution they are described as powers.”
Its described that way because its what they are. Powers. Not rights. Stop acting like a spastic, please.
And as I said, the ONLY powers the government has, are those SPECIFICALLY DELINEATED TO IT by the Constitution.
“An absence of a law does not mean it’s a prohibition.”
LMAO that’s PRECISELY what it means.
You wanna know what “anything” says that? The TENTH AMENDMENT.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So tell us, where is the power of free speech delineated to the Federal Government?
You’ve already proven you dont even have a clue whats being discussed here, by conflating elected officials with the “government”.
They are rights. Powers are the rights of government.
Courts have recognized government rights, the federalist papers recognize government rights, SCOTUS recognizes them too. Powers delineated to the federal government are the rights of government.
Does the government have the right to enter your home with a valid warrant? Yes it does and that’s how it can be argued in court.
You cannot show how the government cannot exercise free speech. What law or constitutional amendment limits government free speech?
“There is absolutely nothing in the constitution saying the absence of a law is a prohibition.”
Bwahahahahahahahahaha
Please read and heed the 10th Amendment. Are you really that ignorant???
There is absolutely no law prohibiting government from expressing an opinion or criticism. None. Justice Kagan pointed out government criticizes news articles and reporting all the time
Can you square that with government agents telling social media to censor and suspend the accounts of news media attempting to publish stories regarding the Biden Bribery Laptop? To pay money to those social media companies, to put government officials inside those social media, to tell them to use the justification that the Biden Bribery Laptop was just “Russian election disinformation”?
Does the First Amendment exist in Anonymous Soviet Democrat world? Kagan skated around that in her opinion, as though it never happened.
How about you making an attempt at justifying that government censorship by proxy
“The government has a free speech right to voice an opinion just like everyone else.”
Cite the amendment. Who speaks for the “the goverment”? Unelected beaurocrats and civil servants? LMAO at that stupidity.
First of all, the government has NO rights. Use proper terminology or continue to look like a fool. The People have rights. The States have rights. The government has duties, and powers ceded to them by those with rights. Thats it!
Secondly, nice way to completely miss the point.
The jist is this, since you missed it. The modern marxist party believes that hate speech and misinformation is not protected speech. Name the law that Congress created that excepted these versions of speech from the First Amendment. And more importantly, did the law define it (as Harris has) and who is the arbiter of what is and what isn’t hate speech and misinformation?
The determination of what speech is acceptable has been abrogated by NO ONE. And that turd won’t float here, either.
Here’s what you should take from this:
As Benjamin Franklin warned, “In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech….Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech, which is the right of every man.”
“The States have rights.”
States are governments. The constitution gives government powers and rights. It has the right to levy taxes. Congress has the right to enact laws. Even the federalist papers point out government rights.
Federalist No. 22:
The right of equal suffrage among the States is another exceptionable part of the Confederation….
In this case, if the particular tribunals [i.e., courts] are invested with a right of ultimate jurisdiction,
Federalist No. 31:
It should not be forgotten that a disposition in the State governments to encroach upon the rights of the Union is quite as probable as a disposition in the Union to encroach upon the rights of the State governments….
Fenemore v. United States, 3 U.S. 357 (1797) (Iredell, J.):
The only question, therefore, that remains to be decided, turns upon the right of the United States, to affirm the original transaction; and, if they have that right, it follows, inevitably, that they ought to recover from the Defendant an equivalent for the value of the certificate, which was surreptitiously obtained. I have no difficulty in saying, that the right exists; and that, the public interest, involved in the credit of a public paper medium, required the exercise of the right in a case of this kind.
Hannay v. Eve, 7 U.S. 242 (1806) (Marshall, C.J., for the Court):
Congress having a perfect right, in a state of open war, to tempt the navigators of enemy-vessels to bring them into the American ports ….
A legal right is, generally speaking, just a label for a legal entitlement, and governments can have that, both with respect to other governments and with respect to individuals.
“Who speaks for the “the goverment”?
Your elected representative. Senator, any government official. The president. You voted for your representative to speak for you in congress. As a member of congress, the government, they have the right to speak on your behalf.
“The modern marxist party believes that hate speech and misinformation is not protected speech. Name the law that Congress created that excepted these versions of speech from the First Amendment. And more importantly, did the law define it (as Harris has) and who is the arbiter of what is and what isn’t hate speech and misinformation?”
They can say it’s not protected speech all they want. That’s their free speech right. That doesn’t change the fact that the courts determine if it is or not. The courts determine if their claim is constitutionally valid or not. Saying hate speech is not protected does not mean they can’t make the claim. They can. Just like you can post misinformation and disinformation and claim it’s true.
“States are governments.”
WRONG
The States and the People are interchangeable terms in this context. You really aren’t from around here, are you?
“Your elected representative. Senator, any government official. The president. You voted for your representative to speak for you in congress. As a member of congress, the government, they have the right to speak on your behalf.”
Fvcking spastic. No one is talking about those people. They are not “the government” in this context. They are elected officials. They are people. No one is denying their rights to say whatever the fvck they want. Get a grip.
No point in having this discussion if you don’t have a clue whats even being discussed.
Here is what this is about, dum dum:
Harris ran on censorship and pledged that her administration “will hold social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms, because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy.”
Anything else you added is irrelevant nonsense.
“The People” and government are also interchangeable. Often referred as a government body. It’s been describe as such in the past and in the constitution.
States have rights which means state governments have rights.
“They are not “the government” in this context. They are elected officials.”
They are members of the government. They are precisely in that context. They are elected government officials. They are part of the governing body.
“No one is denying their rights to say whatever the fvck they want. Get a grip.”
You’re saying they don’t have the right to speak. They ARE the government. Don’t you always complain the government is making too many laws or imposing too many taxes? THEY are the ones who are doing that. THEY are the government and they have the right to do that since it is prescribed in the constitution.
States have rights which means state governments have rights.
WRONG. State governments have powers. You really suck at definitions and context, dont you? Bwhahahahaha
Wrong, the terms, rights and powers are interchangeable.
A legal right is, generally speaking, just a label for a legal entitlement, and governments can have that, both with respect to other governments and with respect to individuals.
In court the ‘right’ of government to do something is always mentioned as a right and as a power.
“A legal right is, generally speaking, just a label for a legal entitlement,”.
What the fvck has that to do with anything LMAO???
Except that you, ya spastic idiot, conflate an individuals right (5A, 1A) with an enumerated power of the government, simply because that individual is employed by the government. Total and unadulterated stupidity. That gaslighting turd dont float here. Try it on someone like yourself, with double digit IQ.
However, now its “legal right”. Just say whatever stupid shit pops into that pin head of yours.
Freedom of speech is not a just a “legal right”. Its a human right. It is a civil right. Its an inalienable right. Its a god given right. It is a RIGHT, because RIGHTS are zealously RESERVED and PRESERVED by the PEOPLE for THEMSELVES (yea, douchebag, even public servants). POWERS are JUDICIOUSLY GRANTED by the PEOPLE to the government. A right is something you possess by virtue of your standing as an American, or persons present in America, its not GIVEN to you by the government. The RIGHT of a government employee to invoke 5A is not a POWER of the governement. That is just some seriously stupid shit right there.
However, POWERS are granted by the people to the governement. Specific and limited. Prohibited by ommission. Period.
“You’re saying they don’t have the right to speak. They ARE the government.”
They serve in the government, you idiot. A king IS the government. A dictator IS the government. Go back to whatever socialist country you came from, if thats how you would have it.
Those individuals SERVING in government freedom of speech doesn’t derive from the fact that they are serve the people, you moron. It comes from the First Amendment.
NO ONE has said that elected officials don’t have free speech rights. They can spew all the disinformation they want. Harris does it every day. What Harris cannot do is have her “administration hold social media companies accountable for protected speech. Nor do they get to decide what is and isn’t protected. “congress shall make no law…”
They are part of the government, they form the government. They constitute the government as a whole.
“What Harris cannot do is have her “administration hold social media companies accountable for protected speech. Nor do they get to decide what is and isn’t protected. “congress shall make no law…”
Sure they can. They can SAY social media companies should be held accountable. They can SAY certain speech isn’t protected. That does not mean they are censoring said speech or punishing said companies. Just saying things without acting on them is not illegal or unconstitutional. It’s not a violation of the first amendment either. They can SAY those things. The fact that they said it is the point. It’s an expression of opinion however wrong it is it’s not illegal for them to say it. They can absolutely do that. Just as Trump could say the media is fake and should be ignored when he was president. He could say CNN should have its ability to publish revoked. He could say that. What he could NOT do is act on it.
“Those individuals SERVING in government freedom of speech doesn’t derive from the fact that they are serve the people, you moron. It comes from the First Amendment.”
The First amendment applies to everyone including those in government. The constitution does not say “except” government does it?
The 5th amendment right to remain silent applies to government officials, correct? They can invoke the right to remain silent just like anyone else. The constitution does says nothing of government officials not allowed to invoke the right. Just as it says nothing of government officials exercising free speech as representatives of the government body.
I will reiterate. Government has rights. Both state and federal. For example the government has the right to enter your home when they have a valid search warrant. The government has a right to impost taxes on your income. The government has the right to declare war. The governments has the right to set rules and regulations. There are plenty of examples.
“I will reiterate. Government has rights. Both state and federal.”
New definition for “reiterate”. To double down on stupid.
The gov’t has POWERS and DUTIES. Not Rights. Individuals have rights. Sorry, you don’t get your own reality.
The Constitution uses the words RIGHTS when applied to the people and POWERS when applied to the gov’t.
If you want to continue to look like a tool, keep reiterating, please.
The Gov’t has the POWER to search. SPECIFICALLY DELINEATED. I have the RIGHT to be free from unlawful search and seizure.
Thanks for proving my point. You named POWERS specifically given to the government BY the people. The government has the POWER to search with a warrant. The President doesn’t. Maxine Waters doesn’t. Some FBI goon can’t lawfully demand access from Twitter to personal data. Asking for it, although not a violation of law, is an attempt to violate 4A rights and should be and possibly is, sanctionable. Can I possibly explain it on a more juvenile level for you?
We are a nation (government) of LAWS, not MEN
Show me ONE instance in LAW, of the government POWERS being referred to as a RIGHT. You don’t get your own reality here, Lawn Boi.
I reiterate: The rights of the people you mention is not derived from their postion in government. Free speech is their right as Americans, not as “government”. Period.
“The Gov’t has the POWER to search. SPECIFICALLY DELINEATED. I have the RIGHT to be free from unlawful search and seizure.”
And the government has the right to search and seizure when a lawful warrant is issued.
The government has the right to seize private property for public use as long as the government compensates the person.
In court such instances are described as such. Because the government does have the right to do something the constitution empowers it to do. You have rights or powers guaranteed by the constitution that the government cannot infringe upon. See how that works.
You have the power of free speech, to exercise it any way you want. But, the government cannot infringe upon that power because it deems it offensive or critical of government. The government has a right to limit speech to time and place and manner because we know the power of free speech is not absolute.
You have the power to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures from government. You have the power to remain silent and not answer any questions and so does government. Did you know a police officer is not legally obligated to tell you why they stopped you? They are also not required to tell you the truth. They have the right to say whatever they want to get you to incriminate yourself. Or as YOU would say, they have the power to say whatever they want to get you to incriminate yourself. Clearly they are indeed interchangeable. You’re too stubborn to see it.
“The 5th amendment right to remain silent applies to government officials, correct?”
You fvcking moron? Jeezus its like talking to a 5th grader.
That RIGHT belongs to the people, of which a government servant is one. It has NOTHING to do with them being a gov’t official. Its certainly not a gov’t power. LMAO at you digging that hole deeper. Put down the shovel, dude!
Spastic now thinks the 5th amendment is a govt power.
“States are governments.”
RIGHT
WRONG
States have governments.
Spastic
“Saying hate speech is not protected does not mean they can’t make the claim. They can.”
Are you seriously arguing that Turley or anyone here thinks Doo Rag Raskin doesn’t have the right to make false claims??
LMAO could you be any further removed from reality? Gaslight much??
Making a law against it or some goon at the FBI working to suppress it is the problem, douche. Thats not what we the people pay them for.
The FBI is not suppressing speech. Where is the proposed law censoring speech? This is what Justice Barrett pointed out. Where is the evidence? Claims and insinuations are not evidence.
I didnt say the FBI. I said a goon at the FBI. Who said anything about a proposed law??? You should have noticed by now that gaslighting turds dont float here.
Everyone has seen the Twitter files, dum dum. If you choose to disbelieve your eyes, fine. You’ve already proven you don’t comprehend well.
Harris said her “administration would hold social media companies accountable” for protected speech. That sounds like a proposal.
And they did. Deny it if you want.
The twitter files didn’t provide the evidence they claimed. That’s what justice Barrett pointed out. The twitter files only showed assumptions and insinuations. Not actual demands of censorship. They did not provide a direct causal link to their claims. Asking them to remove or point out content in violation of their TOS is not a violation of the 1st amendment. Twitter and Facebook still had the final say. Not government.
“Harris said her “administration would hold social media companies accountable” for protected speech. That sounds like a proposal.
And they did.”
How did they hold them accountable? Were they punished? Charged? What did they do? The Biden administration had 4 years to propose a law to hold them accountable, why isn’t there one already? Which democrats have proposed laws holding media companies accountable?
Did you know that Texas actually made a law holding Facecbook and Twitter liable for punishment for dropping politicians who violate their TOS? That’s a direct violation of the 1st amendment. Government compelled speech.
I’m not about arguing opinion fool, find someone else for that.
AS for TX, I would stand in opposition to that. So what?
this is a fact. You said:
“There is absolutely nothing in the constitution saying the absence of a law is a prohibition.”
Bwahahahah most SPASTIC comment EVER!!! Pathetic, even for you!
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
What’s an “opinion fool?”
You
“10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
That’s not saying the absence of laws means prohibition. All this is saying is states make their own laws absent federal laws not specifically mentioned in the constitution. It does not mean what you think it means.
“I’m not about arguing opinion fool, find someone else for that.”
Too late, you’ve been arguing all morning about the opinion on the terms “right” and “power” in the constitution and interchangeability.
“That’s not saying the absence of laws means prohibition.”
Bwahahahahahahahahaha
“How did they hold them accountable? Were they punished? Charged? What did they do? The Biden administration had 4 years to propose a law to hold them accountable, why isn’t there one already? ”
The first question is legit.
Do you understand that every word after that is lame ass gaslighting? You do that a lot. Most rational people recognize that as an indication that you don’t have a legitimate point to make.
We can have a discussion, or you can act like a tool. Your choice.
Again, I’m not going to argue opinions with you. I could care less what your opinion is. I will discuus facts like what the Constitutiion actually says or what words actually mean. It seems you would prefer to reduce it to he said/she said. Not interested in the least.
From the (far left) Guardian
“In the last six months of 2021 alone, Twitter censored an extraordinary 4m tweets – a figure that itself should give us pause.”
“The most worrying issue the Twitter Files have exposed is the level of contact between the social media company and state security organisations. The FBI regularly holds meetings with Twitter executives, pressuring them to take action against “misinformation”, even when this amounted to little more than a satirical tweet, and demanding the personal data of users.”
Even Harris’s 2019 comment could be regarded as “intimidation” when she said she would “hold them accountable”. It doesn’t matter if she acted on it in that light.
In December 2019, a supervisory special agent of the FBI’s national security cyber wing working out of the bureau’s San Francisco field office asked Roth if the company would revise its terms of service to permit a vendor contracted with the bureau to access the Twitter data feed. Agent Elvis Chan extended an invite to Roth to discuss the matter in person with his “colleagues.”
Weeks later, Roth wrote a suggested response to a colleague rejecting Chan’s offer and taking a firm stance to protect user privacy.
There was no “directive” to do this. So what? This is precisely one of the goons I speak of.
At a recent conference on democracy in the digital age, after he resigned from Twitter following Musk’s takeover, Roth said the FBI trained him in Russian hacking threats before the Hunter Biden laptop breakthrough. “It set off every single one of my finely tuned APT28 hack-and-leap campaign alarm bells” when the story surfaced, Roth said.
Even though the FBI knew goddam well the laptop was not Russian disinfo.
Believe what you want, spastic. You wont like it when the tables are turned.
But of course the spastic Lawn Boy doesn’t find it curious that the FBI didnt leap right up and tell twitter that the laptop was authentic, and “suggest” they lift their ban on the story.
Even your far left rag recognizes the pitfalls of what this administration was doing.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/01/the-twitter-files-should-disturb-liberal-critics-of-elon-musk-and-heres-why
From the Guardian
Equally unhealthy is the response of many liberals who have become sanguine about the work of the security apparatus. There has been a remarkable partisan shift in American attitudes towards the FBI, with a huge swing in Democratic support for the organisation. Many now view the FBI as an essential weapon against populism. Many seem to have forgotten the sordid history of the FBI in undermining radical movements from unions to civil rights organisations. The insouciance of liberals and many on the left to such state interference in public life is disquieting.
“The fifth circuit has been overturned so many times for being wrong because their rulings have relied too much on conspiracy theories and claims without evidence.”
not nearly as many times as the Ninth Circuit
sadly Justice Barrett is wrong. one need only look at the recent shutdown of GARM after Elon Musk sued them for pushing censorship.
Elon was suing GARM and GDI because they were exercising their first amendment rights. Musk is miffed because advertisers are choosing not to spend money on X because they don’t want their products to be associated with racists and bigots. It’s entirely their right not spend money where they don’t want to. Musk famously told advertisers who were refusing to spend money on X to “go fvck yourselves”. He literally told them to go fvck themselves. Now he’s upset that they are not advertising on X?
GARM shut down because they couldn’t afford to defend themselves against Elon’s suit demanding advertisers spend money on X. GARM just provided information to advertisers about sites and rated them according to their criteria. That allowed advertisers to decide if they want to spend money on advertisements on certain sites. It’s perfectly legal and constitutional. They can rate sites as bad and/or nor recommended based on their criteria and let people decide if they agree on their findings. That’s not censorship. It is literally free speech being exercised in the same way disinformation misinformation is disseminated.
Elon was suing GARM and GDI because they were exercising their first amendment rights.
Musk was suing them because the First Amendment doesn’t protect them from civil liability for deliberately defaming his company as a political strategy to help their fellow racists, bigots, and Anti-Semitics in the Soviet Democrat party and it’s New Hitler Youth Movement.
GARM shut down because they couldn’t afford to defend themselves against Elon’s suit
Remarkably like the much smaller companies who suffered massive financial losses after being smeared by GARM didn’t have the financial resources to sue GARM for that defamation. Anonymous cowards hope normal Americans don’t remember that.
GARM did have the right to rake in millions profiting from defaming hundreds of much smaller conservative/Republican businesses – and Musk had the right to spend money dragging their lying, political Marxist asses into court to hold them accountable. And now here you are – crying cowardly Anonymous girl tears into your latte because GARM went after the wrong company.
For cowardly Anonymous Soviet Democrats, there’s a lesson in all this: don’t pull on a big dog’s tail unless you also have a plan for the teeth at the other end.
Musk was suing them because he didn’t like the fact that advertisers chose not to advertise on X. He literally told them to go fvck themselves. Now he wonders why they are not choosing to advertise on his platform.
He’s upset because advertisers exercised their free speech rights and he wants to force them to advertise on his platform. He claims to be a free speech absolutist, but he doesn’t agree with the free speech rights of advertisers.
Nobody give a shit about Musk. He isn’t in governement.
But he is a free speech absolutist suing others for exercising their free speech right not to associate themselves with his platform.
“But he is a free speech absolutist suing others for exercising their free speech right not to associate themselves with his platform.”
Which is his right to do.
Just as its your right to say stupid shit like he is a free speech absolutist.
When he bought Twitter he announced that his policy would be one of “freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach”, adding that “negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted”
Thats not absolute freedom of speech. Will you say nothing factual today, drunktard?
Of course it’s his right. That doesn’t mean his lawsuit will be successful. It stands a very good chance of being dismissed. The point is Elon is being a hypocrite and disingenuous. He told advertisers to go fvck themselves. When they stopped advertising on his platform and chose not to spend money to advertise he got mad and sued them for not choosing his platform. Apparently he doesn’t understand free market concepts and free speech despite claiming to be a free speech absolutist.
Must is angry at companies that chose not to advertise on his platform. He is suing them to make them advertise on his platform.
I find the professor’s column confusing and illogical. He lists a whole litany of abuses set up by this administration in order to smother free speech and once one thing is discovered and we get the usual apology “well we really didn’t mean to do that and we’ll stop and won’t do it again”, then we find another, and another and another.
The social media took the sitting president’s voice away in 2020, and wrecked multiple apps that tried to speak freely. And we had the Twitter e-mails to prove it. They knee-capped and nearly destroyed Parlor so well, they could not even find a sever service to try to run their app. They are back but basically emasculated and a vibrant and excellent app was effectively destroyed.
AND Joe Biden sat at the top of this wholesale slaughter of free speech. He is the main in charge (or was) and he let it happen.
To say he is not a significant party to all this is in itself nonsensical. It all comes out of the White House.
Come on Professor, it’s time for some self assessment here and some adjustment of your thinking and outlook.
You have been smacked in the face multiple times by the dead fish of censorship and it’s time to take a breath and truly take in the smell of what your old party is really peddling.
Thats not a pond in your front yard but a huge heap of rotting halibut.
GEB,
Well said.
The Democrat party has become the party of intolerance, censorship, and the party of totalitarianism. Their desire for power and control makes Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot look pedestrian.
I find the professor’s column confusing and illogical.
GEB, pretty good comment, but what you are noticing is just more of professor Turley’s dichotomy as he sees the world through two sets of glasses.
In column after column over recent years, he has expressed admiration for Biden’s AG Merrick Garland while writing that he is saddened by what he says as just a long list of misunderstandings and mistakes by this fine upstanding fellow Democrat who is also a member of the bar. He is almost to the point where he might one day write: “Clearly, Merrick Garland’s record is one of acting as a police state fascist in how he used his position in government”.
Or J6 as another example: he regularly writes of how appalled he and we all were by the three hour long riot a mile away from Trump’s speech that day, and how those who committed criminal acts that day deserved to be punished. Meanwhile, Professor Turley has never similarly wrote about being appalled by the Election Season Mostly Peaceful Pillaging, Rioting, Looting, Burning And Murder. He’s never wrote that he is appalled that the FBI so diligently hunting down every granny who took a selfie on that lawn that day has never made any effort at all to hunt down those who involved in the failed assault on the White House six months before J6. An assault so vicious that over 50 Secret Service and Capitol Police were sent to hospital with wounds they suffered repelling the Soviet Democrats’ street thugs in Antifa and Black Liars & Marxists.
If an issue has a Democrat slant to it, Professor Turley sees it through a very different set of eyes than he does if it has Republican aspects to it.
Sometimes I suspect Turley feels mental anguish when he has to acknowledge the malfeasance and criminality of Soviet Democrats, whether they’re Merrick Garland or anyone else in the Biden/Harris or Obama/Biden administrations.
Airborne, give the professor a chance. He is being shocked by his party’s behavior. But then again, his party is no longer JFK’s party. Today, it is Stalinist. Yesterday, it was only leftist with an element within the party that finally pushed it over the edge.
S. Meyer,
Yes. My sister, a registered Democrat, is in the same position. As are many of her Democrat friends. They look at the insanity that has taken over their party and are at a loss of what to do. My sister did have a few of her Democrat friends tell her that she is thinking “wrong” in not getting on board with the crazy woke leftists thinking.
And a Trump-Vance administration Would NOT Be A Nightmare for Free Speech? The rights of every man all around the world, especially those in Russia, will suddenly be respected as if by magic, like the conclusion of an episode of Care Bears?
Another pinhead spastic idiot that wants voters to ignore 2016-2019. It never happened.
Why are you such a pinhead spastic idiot?
Pinhead spastic idiot ^^^^^
Virtually every statement could be interpreted as “hate speech” if a listener tries hard enough. “I don’t like cold weather.” Oh, so you hate Minnesota. “I don’t like rap music.” Oh, so you hate black people. “I don’t like high taxes”. Oh, so you hate poor people. The standard is so amorphous that it is meaningless. Of course what the Democrats mean (and this is not about Harris/Walz, but about the Democratic Party) is that the “standard” will be interpreted by Democrats in power to smear and actually punish criminally their political opponents.
If speech intended to arouse “hate” were really criminally punishable, almost journalist in New York City and Washington DC would be in jail now. Creating hate is all they know how to do.
edwardmahl,
“Creating hate is all they know how to do.”
That right there!
They are the party of hate. We see it everyday here on the good professor’s blog.
Virtually every statement could be interpreted as “hate speech” if a listener tries hard enough.
edwardmahl, I was a Sonar Tech in the Navy. Our motto was Sagire, Classis, Destructum; Detect, Classify and Destroy. Our Bill of Rights is meaningless to Democrats and the Left. This is not about what they interpret as hate speech. It’s all about detecting their enemies. Speech, Guns, Christian, Pro-Life, and any other “signals” they detect as coming from their enemy follows the same response. When they detect speech coming from their enemy, it gets classified by threat type and their rules of engagement automatically authorize action, up to and including total annihilation. This is a Cold War that is really heating up fast.
OLLY,
Well said and spot on.
I have said it before here on the good professor’s blog, that a civil war must be avoided at all costs. But I fear the woke leftists are pushing for exactly that in their drive for power.
I have said it before here on the good professor’s blog, that a civil war must be avoided at all costs.
Upstate, once we allowed our ideological enemies to operate within our borders and to seize the levers of power, it was only a matter of time before we had to wake the f*ck up and recognize them for the threat they are. Years ago I registered Independent at a time when I was open to choosing someone from the Democratic party. Today, the Democratic party is no longer about a liberal vision for traditional American values. They are openly hostile to that vision. And while I still don’t trust the Republican party, they at least still believe in the American way of life. I also don’t believe it’s enough to call this a civil war. This is more of a global war with our global enemy poised to end our 248 year old experiment.
Admiral Olly, you hit the nail on the head. The Navy taught you well.
Just Chief, thank you very much. 😉
We work for a living! 😉
Just Chief, thank you very much.
If the Left defends Tim Walz for stolen valor when calling himself a “PTSD” victim for deployment as an E-9 (US Army Command Sergeant Major) in spite of being an E-8 (First Sergeant), we can promote you from E-8 (USN Senior Chief Petty Officer) to O-10 (Admiral) gladly, and throw in a pair of aviator wings, water wings and dolphins just for kicks
⚓️💦
Estovir,
Thank you for the laugh!!
Estovir, I will gladly take that promotion IF I could also get the pension as well. Seriously, I know many Command Sergeant Majors and Command Master Chiefs that have honorably earned that title. Any enlisted sailor would know there are those that would be called an E-7, E-8 or E-9, but not Chief, Senior Chief or Master Chief. That is a distinction with a difference. Walz’s rank is just a number, period.
Walz’s rank is just a number, period.
And his BMI is likely >30 which would make him obese at age 60.
I turn 61 this year, and I was recently told that my deltoids look like cantaloupes, my biceps like big guns, and that a naval aviator could land a jet on my broad chest. I have a 33″ waist. To say Walz is a poor excuse of a male is stating the obvious. To say he is a disgrace as a former enlisted man would be right on the target, and with his belly, a target not easily missed by ANTIFA BLM anarchists. One wonders why they missed him. Perhaps it was because Walz was groveling then on bended knee as he is now. ¡Poco hombre!
Here is a good laugh. Please note: MISINFORMATION ALERT!!!
NB: Walz carried and used weapons of war during his service when the U.S. was at war, but he never carried weapons in active combat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
🤡
Did I ever mention that I carried and used NASA space lunar module devices when the US went to the moon, but I never carried these in active NASA missions? Thats because the lunar module devices I had came from a box of cereal and I was a little boy pretending to be an astronaut. Wiki is 🤢
The day Walz is a ware hero is the day I’m a goddam astronaut—Lt Dan
If we get Senate approval, we can make him a 5 Star Admiral
That’s why i’m calling for articles of impeachment.
You ought to set up a fake congress and then draw up fake articles. Take them to a fake court. Then have a fake president, Trump, give a fake news conference giving his fake facts.
Hear Hear!! Thank you, Professor Turley. Even a ‘Classic Liberal’ would have to say’ Spot On..’ The Harris ads which flooded the Olympics said (paraphrasing) ‘we’re going to fix this, this and that..’ but even Einstein would agree that a Double Dose of what broke ‘this, this and that’ is not going to fix it…
What’s going to fix things is you and millions of American peasants acquiring the qualifications to work in the industry where the money is, information technology. If you don’t want to, it is your right. But stop demanding that we stop the world for you.
I think “siren call” is more commonly used as an idiom than “siren’s call.”
another idiom correction from the idiot
I remain very worried about this election. Possibility 1: Harris wins and the Dems get a triumvirate – coordinated attack on the 1st and 2nd Amendment will be almost instant after she takes office. Possibility 2: Harris wins but there is clear and strong indications of fraud and manipulation of elections – the Dems will use the power of government to put down any protest against the results. Possibility 3: Trump wins: = the Dems will not accept it and first challenge the outcome in every swing state; then, if that, fails, try to block certification on Jan 6; and as a last resort, we will see demonstrations and violent riots starting on Jan 20 claiming that Trump cannot be accepted to save democracy or to stop the tyrant and dictator, or whatever else they may claim. I simply don’t see a peaceful transfer of power occurring and we better prepare for the chaos. I hope I am wrong.
Whose free speech? Does some people’s free speech matter more than others?
Maybe Trump will help to liberate the Russians from Putin so that they, too, can express themselves freely. Would Turley like to see this?
Do try to stay on topic.
Obviously you’re a left-wing nutjob who believes in free speech. Thats why you’re anon. Do you ID as trans too and hide that from your wife (opps, sorry) too?
Is that America’s job? Let them liberate themselves. And, yes, do try to stay on topic.
Does this mean that Benjamin Franklin did indeed care about what happened in other countries? The right of every man. Would this include Ukrainian men?
Sure. they have the right to fight and die for their country. You should join them in that fight.
This should be facilitated, not impeded.
Go faciltate, dum dum. No one is impeding you.
The men of the Ukraine would of been much better off had the Ukraine and Russia settled on the peace deal in Istanbul back in the spring of 2020. But Biden the butcher sent Boris Johnson to squash the deal and hundreds of thousands have been killed or wounded in a war no one wanted and could of been avoided.
People like you want to see more death and destruction as long as someone else is doing the dying. You and Waltz have a lot in common, both cowards.
These “selected elected” Presidents are nothing but agents of the Deep State blob that melts together all the bad actors in Washington DC. Clearly the Biden Crime family is protected by the DOJ and CIA. It was clear that Bill and Hillary are protected by the same gang. Obama long comprised by the intelligence community is being protected for his administration’s attempt to overthrow Trump. There is NO American government for the Constitution, but a blob of corrupted actors bent on domination.
Where is your research on this?
Dear ‘anonymous’ from the darkside.. we’ve all seen that you troll this forum 24×7, overwhelming the commentary with your silly anti-Turley one-liners, so that you crowd out everyone else with your ‘name’ in the Index of contributors… what exactly do you hope to achieve, besides looking ridiculous?
It’s free speech.
Yes, you are free to be a spastic here. And, because you are anonymous, you don’t mind being ridiculed and making yourself look like a fool either.
Good boy.
Good to see you’re setting an example for the rest.
Free speech
The facts support your concern Professor. However, most folks just cannot wrap their heads around how bad this really is. Think of it this way, the UK Laws and the selective enforcement of speech chilling creative charging documents and Judges are a clear look into the United States future under a Democratic National Communist (DNC) win in November!!! It is about the appointed Bureaucrats……….
As always, well written. The Kamala Chameleon campaign honeymoon is almost over, DNC convention next, but they will be exposed for what they are: left wing radicals with no tolerance for free speech.
I sure hope you are right.
When you have 95% of media not just covering your butt, but actively promoting, it is rather hard for them to be exposed.
Agree.
When I told some Dem friends they had most of the media slanted in their favor,
they said, “Only FOX News does the propaganda, though.”